What do those intel nerds really do? What is your perception of the Military Intelligence Community? What can we do better?

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 May 2015 03:14:50 -0400

I’ve seen a few negative comments on RallyPoint directed towards the MI Community and would like to hear what everyone truly thinks or what your experiences have been with us Intel nerds.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2015 5:29 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 May 2015 05:29:22 -0400

Haha! Sometimes, it does feel that way. Can you imagine it? Some places put the weather people in buildings without windows! Working for the -2 (my unit is specialised in Army Support Meteorology), I have always done my best to provide accurate and timely information.

My late father, on the other hand, loved to tell a story of a run in he had with a S2 (I think) over it Vietnam. After returning from a patrol that had gone hot, and despite the physical evidence of the aircraft damage, he was directly told that what he had seen and reported was impossible - that MI knew they NVA couldn't have had that kind of materiel there. I wish I remembered it better to relay, though.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 15 at 2015 6:35 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 15 May 2015 06:35:58 -0400

Intel guy here.

In simplest terms, Intel is analyzed information. 90% of the information we get internally, from you guys. Who's going to know where the bad guys are better than the guys who ran into them? We're CONSTANTLY refining that picture. We're constantly talking to each other to make that picture look "as close to real as possible" so that the operations guys can make good decisions.

If we don't have good information (or outdated information), it's a garbage in-garbage out scenario.

But there's also the issue of us having our hands in every other pot, and having to defend our assets as well. As an example, the S2 at the BN level (at least in the USMC) normally also runs the Security program (yes, it's a conflict of interest), because he's got the clearance, and he owns all the classified. He owns all the Maps as well, which "theoretically" would be a logistics function, but can you imagine farming that out to supply? We also had the Substance Abuse Control program oversight.

I mentioned having to defend assets as well. This was over a decade ago, but we had a "rash" of Weapons Companies trying to grab Sniper Platoons from the S2. The Scout Snipers are the Battalion level Reconnaissance Asset. They're our Eye's & Ears. Shifting them to Ops (weapons) would have functionally blinded us.

Now, on my second pump, our BN Co put Intelligence as his "Least Priority" (on his top 5) which was a good thing. It meant it was important, but he didn't have unrealistic expectations of what we could do.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2015 6:47 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 May 2015 06:47:00 -0400

Intel nerd here, I do lots of powerpoint

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2015 8:03 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 May 2015 08:03:43 -0400

Those kids in the picture need great leadership in order to go from inexperienced to mastering the art of predictive analysis.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2015 8:46 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 May 2015 08:46:35 -0400

My tenure was pretty boring threat analysis...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2015 9:05 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 May 2015 09:05:55 -0400

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member Cheif,

As a quasi INTEL guy (I have an FRN and SRN; have collected, produced, and analyzed in real-time) and Operations guy, I want to address your third question with three answers.

1 - INTEL Leaders need to bridge the gap between 2 and 3. Recently I was working in a country in the Levant and reached out to my higher for some help. When I mentioned the capabilities that were in country, the J-2 (at this level) had no idea there were guys on the ground that they could task. This absolutely blew my mind, as we (US SOF) have had a persistent presence in this country for years. They really had no idea of the operational capabilities or the placement of several ODAs. When I went to Tampa after the trip to conduct a brief back, I saw why. There was a central stairwell. At the top of the stairs you turn right to go to Intel, or left to go to OPS. The people in the respective directorates never crossed over or went past the stairs.

2 - Understanding the complexities of a specific countries POL/MIL environment takes a lot of time, reading, and research. One or two analysts producing a "daily" product covering SIGACTS across the Middle East, or any AOR for that matter, does not allow them to become those SMEs on a certain country, so some, if not much, of their analysis will likely be flawed, if not completely wrong. Along with data mining, leaders need to teach networking, i.e., pick up the phone or send an email, and talk to someone in country who can tell you the impact of an event. I cannot tell you how many times I called back to my unit S-2 (MAJ) and told him the analysis in the produced product was wrong because the analyst didn't have all the information.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2015 11:35 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 May 2015 11:35:15 -0400

While not an "Intel Nerd" I am on special duty performing many duties of an "Intel Nerd".

All I can say is: "I could tell you but then I would have to kill you." :)

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made May 15 at 2015 12:34 PM

1SG Michael Blount — Fri, 15 May 2015 12:34:46 -0400

Biggest issue I have with intel people is I get the "cow's brown on this side" analysis. I need something that tells me who, what where why and, most importantly, HOW. When I've got that info, I can draw up a plan that makes sense. Otherwise, I'm casting around in the dark.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made May 15 at 2015 5:20 PM

1SG Steven Stankovich — Fri, 15 May 2015 17:20:04 -0400

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member, everyone is Jason Bourne...especially my CI guys and gals...just ask them... ;)

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2015 9:20 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 May 2015 21:20:21 -0400

I can honestly say I've never held a negative opinion towards the MI branch. I actually enjoy some of the aspects of your job when I do enemy analysis. I will say that as a maneuver commander I wonder what S2 does outside of a combat environment. Typically the only useful product I receive from the S2 is the weather report.

My suggestions for the intel nerds would be this:

1. Focus on what's applicable to the fight. Its more important for me to understand your conclusions than how you arrived at them.

2. Remember that us knuckledraggers need to be able to easily extract data from your reports. I recently received an S2 report during a training session where nearly half of what was briefed was not in the products distributed. While the data was useful, it was far more than I could have written down or remembered. I've also been handed a stack of S2 documents a 1/2" thick. While I appreciated the effort, much of what was included didn't help me plan my mission at the Company Level.

3. Be able to communicate the assets you bring to fight. This ties in to wondering what our S2 actually does most of the time. We'll both be more effective if we understand each other's capabilities.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 1:44 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 May 2015 13:44:14 -0400

Up front, it is almost too easy to have a great story about how "Intel" (vague and ambiguous) failed this or did something stupid that. I am usually flattered that most who purport these stories (more than likely a non-Intel person) have such colorful expose's to tell thier friends; but in the end these stories far outweigh the successful stories about Intelligence in general. I used stand up for the nerdy Intel fks and raised the banner high in defense of the Corps. However; now with a few years of experience, I find it a waste and just enjoy the historical fiction. Having served in the Incantry for many years, then transitioning to MI (in mostly non-analytical positions) I have a perspective that lends itself to one truth. Thier are as many "stories" of operational/operators failing and doing silly things that aren't as colorful but just as silly that get completely overlooked or untold. Truly, next to sustainment bun as who work tirelessly and go unnoticed for Thier efforts; analysts who I have served around/with are some of the hardest and most dedicated practitioners that anyone can find in the service or an the lettered agencies. The work that is done is far more difficult than the more concrete activities conducted in the operational field; far more undefined and extremely abstract. True, teaching analysts to do true predictive analysis is a long and continual process; but it is yoeman's work that when done incorrectly affects everything this the reason the stories are so significant to those who have lives them. I have seen so many units across the spectrum do the work so well that now it is just entertainment to hear all the stories; and the best way to show anyone what those nerdy Intel folks do daily is to just take them into the inner sanctum and show them what is going on behind the SCIF doors. Have yet to meet a CDR who hasn't learned to appreciate and covet thier Intel folks once you have auccesfully navigates those waters. Though, after 15 years in Intelligence; I still do love the photo that PVT Murphy has provided to us all!

Response by TSgt Christopher D. made May 20 at 2015 1:54 PM

TSgt Christopher D. — Wed, 20 May 2015 13:54:38 -0400

Former SIGINT guy here. I was a linguist who also wore the analyst hat. Our reports were the basis upon which OPLANS and theater CONPLANS continuously evolved.

Compartmentalization, synergy and analysis of multi-source intelligence report compilations give us a number of ways to make a probability determination on whether or not a piece of information or data is true, or close to it. I'm amazed by the intertwining redundancy (no, seriously) and the clarity we're able to derive when we corroborate one source's information with several other sources. While these many things occur simultaneously, the "final determination" isn't made immediately. Arguably, it doesn't happen quickly enough in many cases.

I could opine on what we could do "better," but certainly not on the web, and certainly not on any message board not protected to the TS//SCI//NOFORN levels. And since I no longer have access to the high side, I'll keep my fingers still, and my mouth shut.